Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Maryyugo - Rossi mastered the art of supporting book and magazine article publishing as one of his credibility support builder strategies back in the '70s. It'd be interesting to know how many of those were paid engagements.

Reading Lewan's epic tome is mostly a waste of time. Almost everything he says about Rossi is what Rossi told him or published on the internet, in other words, Rossifiction. Lewan does not have a single critical bone in his entire body. It would be hard to find a more gullible person unless it were Sterling Allan, but you won't be able to find him for a decade or so because he is in jail for self-admitted child molesting. The bulk of Lewan's book, when not reciting Rossi fables or his own mis-measured incompetent experiments, is a charming travelogue. Don't waste your time. I regret that I did.

Insight into who Rossi is? ROTFWL! You don't need much insight to know who Rossi is. Just examine his past record in newspaper reports (not Rossi web pages). It's entirely composed of failures, lies, broken promises, impossible projections, implausible behavior and scams -- at least three rotten, expensive scams, each of which cost honest people and governments millions of dollars each. THAT is who Rossi is. And it's pity the jury won't know it because nobody took the time and effort to charge him with those crimes except the Italian government, which did not do it very well.

Hey Woodworker, I don't suppose Rossi's Petroldragon scam, the one that polluted an entire Italian province, could be entered into evidence? Anyway it was probably too long ago and it is too complicated and argued over for a jury to sort out. Apparently, under Italy's legal system, Rossi was convicted, then sentenced, served time, then partly acquitted on appeal, then recharged, then statues of limitations expired, But he was indeed convicted of felonies -- illegal gold trading and tax evasion, IIRC. Krivit has all the details on his web site: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…al-Criminal-History.shtml

So in a civil trial, I am curious to know, can you bring in prior convictions for criminal activity that might be related to the case at hand? How about prior scams, even if they did not result in criminal charges or lawsuits?

I know this is repetitive to the regulars but new people brought in by the trial activity may not know.

Display More

Bringing in evidence of past crimes is always a bit tricky. Why is it being sought to be admitted as evidence, that he is a liar or that he committed a crime? Let's say a party had been convicted of a DUI - should that be admitted? It has very little relevance to a person's credibility, but it is likely to prejudice the jury against the person. Prejudicial value outweighs probative value, likely not admissible. Now, as to Rossi's alleged prior acts: I don't know enough about the status of the criminal charges that were brought against him Italy - was he convicted, reversed on appeal, etc. I think the court will be very careful about letting that in. However, the history of his business ventures - his frequent claims to success that were actually not successful, that might be admitted to show that he is a serial fabulist (liar). Evidence as to his character, likely not admitted, evidence as to his credibility, more likely to be admitted.

It is great to hear from a professional. Thank you. Another professional, Smith, put this issue and many others in perspective. See, for example, the commercially made 1 MW cooling tower on p. 17 of his exhibit 1:

It is about the size and weight of a small automobile: 12' x 12' x 12'. I think it would take months for someone to make a crude, homemade version of this, and it would probably be larger. There is no way you could install something like this in the mezzanine. Furthermore, installing air-cooling equipment inside a building is a crazy thing to do. It defeats the purpose. You put it outside, like the unit shown in this photo, or like the fan for a central air conditioner.

If the patents are to be valid they must teach someone skilled in the art how to make them work. If the patents are to be valid or if the IP was to be truly transferred as required by the agreement, there should be no need to contact the inventor.

No, they do not need to contact the inventor, but it would be useful if they would be competent people and able to follow the instructions they received. Since they have not even been able to provide Boeing with the right fuel, I may have some doubts about it ....

Whatever legal etc reasons they may have for keeping a low profile, they were informed of this a long time before any question of legal action. Therefore not to respond or retract shows either extreme incompetence - where they do not properly read a critique of their own work, or unprofessional behaviour where in spite of knowing work to be incorrect they do not retract it.

Or it shows that they do not agree with criticism or they can not give too many explanations without breaking any agreement (remember that Lugano's reactor is not an object of which all the details are known .... many aspects of its operation remain secret and they might have understood something they can not reveal but that has prompted them to make tests and replications at home, in silence).

The SEC issue is certainly NOT "Cherokee being in the crosshairs of the SEC". Yet the one who "is only searching for truth" paints a very untrue picture to help support his defense of Rossi because Rossi cannot defend himself. Cherokee is in fact in good standing with the SEC as far as all known claims.

This exchange of views made few days ago made me curious. I did not know anything about Cherokee's past problems with the SEC and I was wondering if Bob's trust in Cherokee's current situation was correct. So I did some control, and I have to say that Bob is wrong: Cherokee is not at all in good standing with the SEC!

Cherokee Investment Partners LL C is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC under the Investment Adviser Act of 1940. Cherokee, as investment adviser, must file the Form ADV. In the last one that Cherokee filed we can see that they made false declarations and omissions that may constitute a federal criminal violation!

First of all I think it's better to explain some of the words used.

An investment adviser is a person or firm that is engaged in the business of providing investment advice to others or issuing reports or analyses regarding securities, for compensation. Investment advisers may include money managers, investment consultants, financial planners, general partners of hedge funds, and others who are compensated for providing advice about securities.

Investment advisers generally must register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or state securities authorities.

"Form ADV is the uniform form used by investment advisers to register with both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and state securities authorities. The form consists of two parts. Part 1 requires information about the investment adviser’s business, ownership, clients, employees, business practices, affiliations, and any disciplinary events of the adviser or its employees. Part 1 is organized in a check-the-box, fill-in-the-blank format. The SEC reviews the information from this part of the form to process registrations and manage its regulatory and examination programs. Although designed for a regulatory purpose, investment adviser filings of Part 1 are available to the public on the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) website at www.adviserinfo.sec.gov.

Beginning in 2011, Part 2 requires investment advisers to prepare narrative brochures written in plain English that contain information such as the types of advisory services offered, the adviser’s fee schedule, disciplinary information, conflicts of interest, and the educational and business background of management and key advisory personnel of the adviser. The brochure is the primary disclosure document that investment advisers provide to their clients. When filed, the brochures are available to the public on the IAPD website. [...]"

So the aim of this Form is to give information to the potential customers and to the officials of the SEC so that they not only acquire a check list for future investigation visits but also can evaluate potential conflicts of interest regarding the adviser and its related persons (including companies and/or persons affiliate to the adviser). Sections 203 and 204 of the Advisers Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-3 and 80b-4) authorize the SEC to collect the information required by Form ADV for regulatory purposes and then it maintains the information submitted on this Form and makes it publicly available.Intentional misstatements or omissions constitute federal criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. §1001 and 15 U.S.C.§ 80b-17.

Form ADV contains four parts : 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B. The Form ADV Part 1A is the most important since the information given are the bases of the evaluation made by the SEC for the registration or for the suspension and/or revocation of the registration. The Part 1A consists of 12 Items, which must be check all together because the requested information constitute an unique and entire system.

Now we can return to the Cherokee's case.

Cherokee filed the last Form ADV Part 1A on 03/29/2017 and the last Form ADV Part 2A on 03/31/2017. Anyone can read them by following these links:

Another name declared by Cherokee as business name : Cherokee Advisers LLC (relying Advisor)"

In the premise of Item 6, the Form ADV asserts : "In this Item, we request information about your firm’s other business activities. "

Item 6 A Question : "You are actively engaged in business as a (check all that apply) "

In order to answer you must check a list of activities, among them there is this one: "(5) real estate broker, dealer, or agent."

Cherokee's answer : “ none “ – despite all the related companies engaged in real estate activity! The brownfields are by definition a real estate activity in so far they are not just remediation but also revitalization by building and selling housing, commercial centers etc. Moreover the Form ADV points out: "If you engage in other business using a name different from the names reported in Items 1.A or 1.B (in this case Cherokee Investment Partners LLC and Cherokee Advisers LLC), complete Section 6.A of Schedule D." Since Cherokee does not declare any activity except for the institutional activity, consequently does not declare any name of their related companies.

Item 6 B (1) Question : "Are you actively engaged in any other business not listed in Item 6.A (that is other than giving investment advice)?"

Cherokee’s answer: “no”. This answer is an omission, because Cherokee had to declare that it is actively engaged in another business with, for example, Industrial Heat LLC et al.

The office address of Cherokee Investment Partners LLC and the office address of Industrial Heat LLC are the same, Thomas Darden and John Mazzarino are consistent shareholder both of Cherokee Investment Partners LLC and Industrial Heat LLC, therefore Cherokee Investment Partners LLC and their officers Thomas Darden and John Mazzarino are directly engaged in the activity of IH LLC. As requested by Form ADV they engaged in this business with another name. Cherokee-Industrial Heat acting as a licensee of an energy renewable device and acting as a sponsor of research and development in the LENR field , is engaged in a business activity different both from the activities listed in Item 6 A and from an investment advice activity.

Both the omission in not declaring its real estate activity as a dealer (with another name , but it doesn’t matter for the SEC) and the omission in not declaring the activity of Industrial Heat could be very important in order to hide a problem of potential conflicts of interest between the investment advice activity and such others activities. The SEC is very focused on this matter and every omission may constitute a federal criminal violation.

And now Item 11, Disclosure Information.

In the premise the Form ADV asserts: "In this Item, we ask for information about your disciplinary history and the disciplinary history of all your advisory affiliates. We use this information to determine whether to grant your application for registration, to decide whether to revoke your registration or to place limitations on your activities as an investment adviser, and to identify potential problem areas to focus on during our on-site examinations. One event may result in “yes” answers to more than one of the questions below. Your advisory affiliates are : (1) all of your current employees (other than employees performing clerical, administrative , support or similar functions),(2) all of your officers, partners, or directors (or any person performing similar functions), and (3) all persons directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by you. If you are a "separately identifiable department or division" (SID) of a bank , see the Glossary of Terms to determine who your advisory affiliates are. If you are registered or registering with the SEC or if you are an exempt reporting adviser, you may limit your disclosure of any event listed in Item 11 to ten years following the date of the event. [...]"

Item 11 H (1) (a) Question : "Has any domestic or foreign court in the past ten years, enjoined you or any advisory affiliate in connection with any investment-related activity?"

Cherokee’s answer : “ No”.

Let's analyze every term of the question according to the” Glossary of Terms” attached to the Form ADV Instructions published in the SEC website :

- Advisory Affiliate : Your advisory affiliates are (1) all of your officers, partners, or directors (or any person performing similar functions);(2) all persons directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by you; and (3) all of your current employees( other than employees performing only clerical, administrative, support or similar functions).

Enjoined: This term includes being subject to a mandatory injunction, prohibitory injunction, preliminary injunction, or temporary restraining order.

Summarizing: Ashley II of Charleston LLC is a company controlled by Cherokee (therefore it is an advisory affiliate), operative in the field of real estate. Ashley II of Charleston LLC (together with Ashley I LLC, both companies controlled by Cherokee) bought a brownfield in order to clean up it and build on the site. Then something went wrong..... The following is taken from this link:

"These appeals arise from disputes as to liability for cleanup of hazardous substances at a former fertilizer manufacturing site in Charleston, South Carolina. After incurring response costs, Ashley II of Charleston, Inc., the current owner of a portion of the site, brought a cost recovery action against PCS Nitrogen, Inc., under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 (2006). PCS counterclaimed and also brought third-party contribution actions against parties with past and current connections to the site. The district court bifurcated the case for trial. At the conclusion of the first bench trial, it found PCS a potentially responsible party jointly and severally liable for response costs at the site. At the conclusion of the second bench trial, the court found some of the other parties, including Ashley, potentially responsible parties, each liable for an allocated portion of the site’s response costs. PCS, Ashley, and many of the other parties now appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects."

The Court’s verdict is a mandatory injunction in so far it ordered to the parties to remediate the site at their expenses. Moreover on April 4, 2013 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit confirming the judgement of the District Court decided that Ashley II of Charleston LLC was a liable part under CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response , Compensation, and Liability Act) for the costs of the clean up and remediation of the site (see link above).

All the information that I have given here have been found in the internet and are public. It seems clear to me that Cherokee could still have some trouble with the SEC.......

Or it shows that they do not agree with criticism or they can not give too many explanations without breaking any agreement (remember that Lugano's reactor is not an object of which all the details are known .... many aspects of its operation remain secret and they might have understood something they can not reveal but that has prompted them to make tests and replications at home, in silence).

You have either not looked at the literature (Lugano Report + critique) or you are dissembling on purpose.

The issue criticised is nothing to do with the reactor, merely how to do the IR calorimetry calculations. Nothing more than they have already discussed,in detail, but wrongly.

They may have seen green leprechauns jumping around the reactor, feel this is a trade secret, and be encouraged by it. They still have a duty to retract or defend their (more boring and believable by others) calorimetry results.

Rends is entitled to have a partisan view of proceedings, as it does not necessarily affect his ability to moderate. And if it did there are other moderators with other opinions on the Rossi affair who could step in. The function of a moderator here is primarily to ensure civil debate, to prevent trolling and doxxing and to (try) to prevent thread drift. There is nothing in our own ToS to say we are obliged always to be impartial on every topic under discussion.

The Swedes have shown themselves collectively to be highly unprofessional, or highly incompetent, or both.

Interesting. You are speaking about a Professor Emeritus with a brilliant Curriculum, a Professor in Chemistry that is also a valued Police consultant, a Professor or Theoretical Physics and also another group (including a former faculty Dean).

Which is your curriculum to write in this way. You should at least a Nobel Prize.

What I think is that all the observations against Lugano and the Swedes are strongly biased by "the voice of IH" that is trying to disseminate FUD.

Interesting. You are speaking about a Professor Emeritus with a brilliant Curriculum, a Professor in Chemistry that is also a valued Police consultant, a Professor or Theoretical Physics and also another group (including a former faculty Dean).

Which is your curriculum to write in this way. You should at least a Nobel Prize.

What I think is that all the observations against Lugano and the Swedes are strongly biased by "the voice of IH" that is trying to disseminate FUD.

Bull! Whatever their qualifications, which I think you significantly inflated, these people earned their Moletrap nickname of the "three blind mice." Their work was at best uriniferous, probably fecal is a better descriptive. The system they tested was unsuited for the purpose. Much better instrumentation exists: https://tinyurl.com/kx4opjq if you absolutely have to test the hot cat despite its poor performance which is in every way inferior to the original ecats as claimed by Rossi and Levi and Focardi. So it was the wrong test of the wrong device. And they made no effort to question Rossi about his choice of input power source, why it was three phase, etc. etc. They failed to connect their own power source in series ahead of Rossi's to get a better measure. They failed to insist on proper calibration over the entire temperature range. They totally failed to guard against sleight of hand manipulations of fuel, ash, input power, and instrumentation by Rossi and/or Levi. In other words, these people you admire behaved negligently and incompetently and their failure to perform properly is what caused this entire absurd fiasco because Darden mostly relied on them.

The Rossi case may be complex legally but it is piss simple scientifically. The ecat was never tested properly. IH and Darden/Vaughn ALSO royally screwed the pooch. They chose the wrong tests and the wrong advisers (the usual suspects). And thus, all this time and millions of dollars were wasted totally. Well not totally. The wasted investor funds will put attorneys in luxury homes and cars and jewels and send their children to private school for a long time to come.

The tests that were actually needed should have been done on the early ecat versions (the single chamber, liquid-cooled ones) and independently with correct instruments, properly placed thermocouples and complete calibration. That would have clearly revealed, once and for all, that the ecat did not work and by deduction from his claims and his blog, that Rossi was a lying con man who had nothing of value. It could have been done in weeks at a cost probably less than one day of trial, never mind the added cost of depositions and getting the attorneys up to speed on the case in its current complex condition.

By this time, that should be crystal clear to everyone who has followed the ecat's development (as I have for six years) *and* has even a modicum of background and ability in science and engineering..

In this days I made also some internet search and found the sad story of the death poor John Polzin and his family.

In fact even if, thanks of of it's lawyers and huge amount of money, may be that Cherokee has been cleaned juridically, I think that hold still a moral responsibility about his tragic death.

Reading this article : http://www.westword.com/content/printView/5850390 I have found that " just seven days earlier [the tragic day], a Denver police officer had contacted a demolition contractor working on an adjacent site about the shaft, and the fact that several gates around the property were either unlocked or left open."